Note this interesting comment by Conrad Black, posted at the bottom of the next section, just below this opening section:
“Conrad Black on companies sharing profits with employees as a strategy to counter the frustrations of young people with capitalism and the growing turn to socialism for help.” Black details Magna boss Frank Stronach’s detailed points for sharing more business profits with employees.
See below the blunt-speaking Adam Corolla (podcast) on the “lunacy, craziness, insanity, etc.” (your choice which term) as he illustrates the positions that politicians take on varied issues today, notably the trans-activist extremism (i.e. “the madness where people would not define a woman, as had been done before across all history, many stating that it could now be a person with a penis”). I extrapolate from that particular insanity out to the apocalyptic millennial madness that is constantly beaten into public consciousness by hysterical end-times prophets constantly ginning up the next crusade to sell their salvation schemes (i.e. salvation through destruction of liberal democracy societies) and keep the money taps flowing.
Note new material below re Matt Taibbi’s report on the left-leaning bias in AI information, including Grok, and Grok’s response to that report.
Then…
I stated this in my response to a friend, Bob Brinsmead (posted at bottom of the section just below), regarding the theological breakthrough of Historical Jesus:
“I have come at this a thousand ways since as it can not be stated enough on how profoundly that one statement changes everything, everything that we (humanity) have been told across the history of human consciousness and narrative creation, driven as we are by our impulse to meaning and purpose- i.e. to know what it means to be unconditionally human. And the gift of the contrast between Jesus’ message and Paul’s Christology gives us such a contrast to understanding what good and evil really mean.”
Bob is arguably the finest theological mind to ever have graced this planet. How so? For having the intuitive sense of the critically important as distinguished from the peripheral, for doing uniquely focused historical research (e.g. how Hellenism shaped Paul’s Christ myth, and for presenting the best of insights and conclusions on “a new theology for a new millennium”. We’re waiting, Bob, for the next paper.
Bob’s material is available at “bobbrinsmead.com” and at his Substack. Here is a sample article from his Substack…
https://robertdbrinsmead.substack.com/p/this-man-and-the-christian-religion
My query:
Grok, your summary please of the top section at http://www.wendellkrossa.com/ titled- “Love is the meaning and purpose of reality, life, and the human story”
Grok replied:
Summary of the top/posted section “Love is the meaning and purpose of reality, life, and the human story” (July 18, 2026) by Wendell Krossa:
Krossa’s core thesis is that love— specifically unconditional love as taught by the Historical Jesus— is the central meaning and purpose of existence, the cosmos, life, and human history. Everything in reality ultimately points toward humanity learning, experiencing, and manifesting this love. wendellkrossa.com
Key Elements of the Argument
• Jesus vs. Paul contrast: The post strongly distinguishes the merciful, non-retaliatory message of Jesus (emphasizing unconditional love, forgiveness, and “hesed” or covenantal loving-kindness from Old Testament prophetic insights) from Paul’s “Christ myth,” which Krossa sees as reintroducing primitive themes of retributive justice, wrath, violence, and “salvation through destruction.” He views Paul’s theology (influenced by earlier traditions like Zoroastrianism) as having dominated Western consciousness with harmful results, linking it to later ideologies such as Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism. wendellkrossa.com
• Dualism and free choice: A material world with contrast, suffering, and animal-like impulses (tribalism, domination, retaliation) is seen as necessary. It creates opportunities for authentic free choice of love over its opposites. Coerced or reward-driven “love” (e.g., via threats of punishment or social virtue-signaling) is not genuine; true love must be chosen freely for its own sake. This framework supports human maturation and is valued by the Creator. wendellkrossa.com
• Critique of traditional Christianity: Drawing heavily on Christian psychologist Harold Ellens, Krossa criticizes the “monster God” image— a violent, wrathful deity requiring bloody sacrifice (the crucifixion as “infanticide” or child sacrifice disguised as grace). This archetype, crystallized in atonement theories, fosters violence, guilt, shame, and a cultural tendency to solve problems through force. He argues that such beliefs powerfully shape behavior and that distinguishing good (Jesus’ unconditional mercy) from evil (cloaked as divine justice) is humanity’s fundamental responsibility. wendellkrossa.com
• Love as foundational: Without love, nothing makes sense. Science and materialism are useful for the physical world but miss the conscious, subjective core of reality. Only conscious humanity gives meaning to the universe; love is more fundamental than physics. Early human recognition of divine mercy/kindness progressed to Jesus’ fuller revelation of an unconditionally loving God. wendellkrossa.com
The post includes prefatory notes on current events (e.g., comments on JD Vance, Canadian “woke” culture and self-censorship, Orwellian social pressures) and references to thinkers like Bob Brinsmead, Thomas Jefferson, Leo Tolstoy, and others. It frames the site as a “commoner’s blog” repeatedly exploring these themes (the “Jesus/Paul contradiction,” “1001 takes” on ultimate hope that “it’s going to be alright for everyone, ultimately”). wendellkrossa.com
In short, it’s a philosophical/theological essay arguing that learning unconditional love through free choice in a dualistic world is the grand narrative and purpose of human existence, with Jesus’ message as the pivotal breakthrough against older retributive myths.
My further query in response to Grok’s ending suggestions:
Yes, let’s do “Explore Harold Ellens’ monster God concept” and “Investigate Zoroastrianism’s influence on theology”
Grok’s further response:
Harold Ellens’ “Monster God” Concept
J. Harold Ellens (1932–2018), a psychologist, theologian, Presbyterian pastor, and editor of works like The Destructive Power of Religion and Radical Grace, developed a psycho-theological critique of dominant Western images of God. His “Monster God” (or “sick God”) refers to the archetype of a violent, wrathful, retributive deity who resolves problems through ultimate force, punishment, or sacrifice. scielo.org.za +1
Core Ideas
• Psychological and cultural impact: This image, rooted in biblical metaphors (e.g., warrior God, cosmic dualism of good vs. evil, atonement requiring violence), acts as a powerful unconscious archetype. It fosters violence, guilt, shame, anxiety, and a cultural tendency to solve conflicts through force (“If your God uses force, then so may you”). Ellens argued it produces “sick people” because “sick gods make monster people.” scielo.org.za +1
• Biblical roots and critique: He pointed to stories like the expulsion from Eden, demands for sacrifice, and New Testament emphases (e.g., in Romans or Revelation) on wrath and judgment. The crucifixion is sometimes framed as divine child sacrifice or infanticide disguised as grace. This contrasts with a healthier view of God as a source of unconditional grace, mercy, and benevolence (aligned with Jesus’ message of radical, non-retaliatory love). amazon.com
• Health benefits of alternative view: Belief in a benevolent, gracious God promotes psychological and physical well-being, akin to Carl Rogers’ unconditional positive regard. It reduces threat-based anxiety and encourages healthier human functioning. Ellens’ work in psycho-theology explored how God-concepts shape mental health. amazon.com +1
Ellens saw this as part of a broader project: religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) carry “toxic texts” and violent core metaphors from ancient dualistic struggles, influencing everything from personal psychology to societal violence and fundamentalism. He advocated reinterpreting or moving beyond these toward grace-centered theology. books.google.com
Zoroastrianism’s Influence on Theology (Especially Western/Christian)
Zoroastrianism, founded by the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra, likely ~1000 BCE or earlier in ancient Iran), is a dualistic faith centered on the cosmic battle between Ahura Mazda (the wise Lord, embodiment of good) and Angra Mainyu (destructive spirit of evil). It emphasizes ethical choice, purity, and an eventual triumph of good. thecollector.com
Key Influences on Jewish and Christian Thought
Scholars note significant parallels, especially post-Babylonian Exile when Jews encountered Persian (Achaemenid) rule, which was tolerant and Zoroastrian-influenced. Direct causation is debated, but historical contact makes influence plausible. thecollector.com +1
• Dualism and cosmic conflict: Good vs. evil as opposing forces (light/darkness, truth/lie). This shaped later Jewish and Christian views of Satan/devil as a more personalized adversary, and history as a battlefield leading to final resolution. iheart.com
• Eschatology (end times): Detailed apocalyptic scenarios including resurrection of the dead, final judgment (souls judged by deeds, with a bridge or separation of righteous/wicked), a savior figure (Saoshyant, a miraculous bringer of renewal), cosmic battle, defeat of evil, and a renewed/perfected world. These parallel Christian ideas in Revelation, the millennium, heaven/hell distinctions, and general apocalyptic literature. Pre-Persian Jewish eschatology was less developed on these points. thecollector.com +1
• Other elements: Angelology/demonology, ethical dualism influencing behavior, and millennial hopes (a future golden age). Some trace influences on Paul’s theology or broader New Testament apocalypticism to these sources (via Hellenistic Judaism or direct exposure). avesta.org
Context and Debate
• Zoroastrian ideas likely entered Jewish thought during/after the Exile and spread into early Christianity. Not all scholars agree on the extent (some emphasize internal biblical development, e.g., Psalm 90 for millennial concepts), but many see it as a key contributor to Western apocalyptic and millennial traditions. cambridge.org
• This ties into critiques like Krossa’s: Paul’s Christology and “salvation through destruction” themes may draw from earlier Zoroastrian-influenced dualistic/apocalyptic complexes, contrasting with Historical Jesus’ emphasis on unconditional love. thecollector.com
These topics interconnect in discussions of how violent or dualistic God-images (the “monster God”) have shaped theology and society, versus grace-centered alternatives. Ellens focused on psychological harm; Zoroastrian studies highlight historical transmission of ideas. For deeper reading, Ellens’ multi-volume The Destructive Power of Religion and scholarly works on Zoroastrian-Jewish-Christian interactions are excellent starting points.
This from Adam Corolla on the insanity possessing many today.
“The Odyssey Press Tour JUST GOT WORSE!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxTiPIWrPEk&t=12s
Insert: “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” is an early study of crowd psychology by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay
AI Overview
Published in 1841, Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a foundational text on herd mentality and collective hysteria. It investigates how societal whims, economic bubbles, and mass fears can overtake rational thought, making it a highly influential reference for behavioral economics and psychology.
The book is famously divided into three parts: “National Delusions,” “Peculiar Follies,” and “Philosophical Delusions.” It breaks down numerous historical manias and credulities, most notably:
• The Economic Bubbles: Detailed accounts of “Tulipomania” in the Netherlands, the Mississippi Scheme, and the South Sea Bubble. These chapters are frequently cited by modern finance writers.
• Mass Psychosis and Superstition: In-depth looks at witch hunts, the Crusades, alchemy, and the belief in haunted houses.
• Fads and Culture: Quirky examinations of popular follies, ranging from the perceived value of relics to the societal influence of beard and hair shapes.
While Mackay’s journalistic flair and occasional historical inaccuracies are acknowledged by modern scholars, his core message about the dangers of imitative behavior remains highly relevant.
(End of AI Overview)
Adam Corolla in this video comments on the insanity of past years where we descended into the madness where people would not define a woman, as had been done before across all history, many stating that it could now be a person with a penis. This is absolute insanity but then I think that is what our societies have been going through for decades with mass hysteria over naturally changing weather, with scientists, politicians, news media, entertainers, and others all claiming that we are facing the apocalyptic ending of life and the world.
This Instagram clip also illustrates the insanity that the embrace of apocalyptic lunacy results in (as related to climate madness). The woman in 1976 points to a summer temperature map with yellow coloring and states “Its going to be a lovely sunny day”. The woman in 2026 points to a summer temperature map colored dark red (same degree of warmth) but states, frowning, “We’re all going to die”.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DZ-DcSbgHkS/
“Apocalyptic climate change” has been an absolutely lunatic “madness of crowds” eruption and mass hysteria, just as across past history people have fallen for similar “madness of crowds” explosions that ruin societies and even turn to violence against posed threats that must be forcefully eliminated. Apocalyptic exaggeration and distortion has driven more societies mad and often led populations to embrace irrational “salvation through destruction” schemes.
Look at what the mental deformity of apocalyptic did to Germany (WW2) ruining that society and causing some 50-60 million deaths. We saw the same throughout last century’s violent Marxist revolutions also driven by the same apocalyptic millennial lunacy (salvation through destruction). And now we are suffering again through the madness of theocratic crusades, notably Islamic (i.e. promised salvation in the coercive installation of a worldwide Caliphate after purging the world of the evil of unbelievers in liberal democracies).
All differing public expressions driven by the same core themes that energize people to engage violence and widespread destruction to save something that is believed to be under existential threat.
Terrorizing populations that the end of the world is soon coming, with actual dates repeatedly set, arouses people’s survival impulse and they become irrational, willing to embrace crazy salvation schemes.
H. L. Mencken’s point is spot on:
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary” (In Defense of Women).
Apocalyptic prophets terrorize populations with exaggerated bogey men and alarmed people will then do anything to save themselves and their societies, even engage violence toward the posed threats that are often differing others who are demonized, vilified, and exaggerated as the existential threats.
Alarmed people then become willing to ruin their entire societies just as the Germans have done before and are repeating again under the madness of Net Zero decarbonization.
And the Chinese and the Russians just stand by bemused at the madness of the West, like Nikita Kruschev said, that if they are stupid enough to want to hang themselves then we will offer them the rope to do it with. Madness that goes beyond the usual functioning as the “useful idiots” for Marxism but also succumbing to the insanity of destroying their societies from within.
AI Overview
While that quote captures the confrontational spirit of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev never actually said those words. Instead, the phrase is a variation of a famous maxim about capitalism that is most frequently— though also apocryphally— attributed to Vladimir Lenin.
The Real Origin: Lenin’s “Rope” Quote
The phrase you are thinking of is a distortion of the classic quote: “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
• The Core Meaning: The statement expresses the Marxist-Leninist belief that capitalism is inherently self-destructive. It suggests that because Western businessmen and nations are driven entirely by profit, they will gladly sell technology, resources, and credit to communist states, unknowingly funding and building up the very military and economic powers that will eventually destroy them.
• The Sourcing Problem: Even though this is widely considered a “Lenin quote,” historians have never found it written in any of Lenin’s published works. The closest verified source is a manuscript note from a Russian diplomat named I.U. Annenkov, who recalled Lenin stating that Western capitalists “will work on the preparation of their own suicide” by supplying the Soviet Union with credits and materials.
Why People Think Khrushchev Said It
It is easy to see why this gets credited to Khrushchev, as he was famous for using colorful, aggressive, and sometimes crude folk sayings during his diplomatic encounters. He did make two very famous, similarly themed statements that likely blurred together with the “rope” quote over time:
1. “We will bury you” (1956): Addressing Western ambassadors at a reception in Moscow, Khrushchev boasted, “Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!” Western media interpreted this as a literal nuclear threat, but Khrushchev later clarified that he meant it in a Marxist sense— that communism would outlive and outlast capitalism, just as a new generation outlives the old.
2. “We will show you Kuzka’s mother” (1959/1960): This is a Russian idiom meaning “we will teach you a lesson” or “we will show you what’s what.” He used it against Richard Nixon during the famous Kitchen Debate and reportedly again at the United Nations. Because translators struggled with the phrase, it often came across to the American public as an ominous, violent threat.
Ultimately, the idea of offering an adversary the “rope to hang themselves” is an old English proverb that became deeply intertwined with Cold War rhetoric, but it was never an official quote by Khrushchev.
(End of AI Overview)
Then Corolla plays an interesting video of a British health official who went along meekly with the trans activist hysteria of past years, claiming that women could have penises and men could also have babies. Now he is publicly backing away from that insanity. The interviewer asks him how could he, as a well-educated person, have gone along with such lunacy as women with penises. The health official mumbles and stumbles around avoiding a clear answer or admission. Corolla interjects that the official knew better but when the far-left trans activists bullied him, he cowardly went along even while knowing that it was all a lie. I appreciate Corolla’s blunt common sense take on things.
Thomas Mackey in Madness of Crowds was right that people go mad in herds and then only one by one come back to their senses. They return to common-sense, but the ruin of their societies goes on (lag inertia). You need more people to return to sanity and stop the ruin that has been set in motion.
There are many others who never believed the apocalyptic narratives in the first place, but their passivity in the face of such madness did not result in any serious pushback against the madness. And that passivity is just what Hannah Arendt called “the banality of evil” in that many did not have the courage, the steel spines, to protest the madness. Look at how many just went along with the Covid lies and hysteria.
Thankfully, courageous others did protest both the climate lunacy and the Covid hysteria but were defunded, censored, vilified, banned, and fired from jobs. Note, for example, the case of Jay Battacharya who early on protested the Covid insanity and how he was vilified.
AI Overview
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, currently the Director of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), was heavily vilified by public health officials and the media for co-authoring the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for ending strict COVID-19 lockdowns in favor of “focused protection” for the vulnerable.
The backlash to his contrarian approach involved several coordinated efforts:
• Internal Government Smears: Prominent health officials, including former NIH Director Francis Collins, privately and publicly attacked his views, calling for the declaration to be “quickly and devastatingly published taken down.”
• Academic Backlash: Other scientists quickly organized the John Snow Memorandum to counter his strategy, arguing that his proposals were unsafe and would result in mass casualties. Critics frequently characterized his views as a dangerous “let ‘er rip” or “wishful thinking” strategy.
• Big Tech Censorship: Bhattacharya’s ideas and videos were shadow-banned and suppressed on platforms like YouTube and Twitter, a coordinated censorship campaign that was later the subject of lawsuits and reviewed in congressional and judicial proceedings.
• Media Portrayal: Major media outlets and pandemic commentators criticized his advocacy, accusing him of promoting misinformation, aligning with political agendas rather than established science, and minimizing the severity of the virus.
Despite the intense character attacks and suppression, his standing later shifted. Court rulings, including a significant Fifth Circuit decision, agreed that government agencies engaged in a years-long pressure campaign to unlawfully suppress dissident viewpoints. Bhattacharya was subsequently confirmed to head the NIH, a move his supporters view as the ultimate vindication of his scientific dissent.
(End of AI Overview)
We are all individually faced with varied issues of courage or cowardice because our societies are repeatedly subjected to apocalyptic eruptions such as in climate alarmism, Covid hysteria, as well as repeated theocratic and socialist assaults on our liberal democracies. These are issues that affect our entire societies, and we can not just stand by and watch the ruin caused by the apocalyptic prophets cloaking their madness as noble crusades to “save the world”. Their virtue signaling as righteous heroes fighting great battles against the evil of any who disagree with their apocalyptic narratives has been exposed as their being infected with the mental deformity of “suicidal empathy” that engages “salvation through destruction”.
Again, look around at the outcomes of their lunacy- i.e. mutilated children’s bodies (trans hysteria and social contagion among normally confused youth passing through a stage of life), and ruined societies like Germany and Britain still suffering the mass-delusion of salvation through Net Zero decarbonization.
https://segm.org/GIDS-puberty-blockers-minors-the-times-special-report
AI Overview
The Tavistock clinic scandal refers to the closure of England’s NHS Gender Identity Development Service following the 2022 Cass Review, which found evidence of medicalization driven by social contagion. Psychologist Jordan Peterson cites this fallout as vindication of his longstanding warnings against ideological capture in medicine and compelled speech.
The Tavistock Clinic Scandal
The Tavistock clinic, formerly England’s primary youth gender service, was ordered to close by the National Health Service (NHS) following the independent Cass Review.
• Key Findings: The Cass Review concluded that evidence supporting puberty blockers and hormone interventions for youth was weak, and that rapid-onset gender dysphoria was heavily influenced by peer groups and social media.
• Outcome: The NHS replaced the centralized Tavistock clinic with regional hubs to provide more holistic, developmentally focused mental health evaluations rather than automatically affirming medical transitions.
Jordan Peterson’s Stance and the “Social Contagion” Debate
Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist and cultural commentator, has been a vocal critic of gender-affirming care, aligning his views with the Cass Review findings regarding social contagion.
• Compelled Speech: Peterson initially gained international prominence in 2016 by objecting to Canadian legislation (such as Bill C-16), which he argued compelled the use of specific gender-neutral pronouns.
• Medical Critique: Regarding Tavistock, Peterson has frequently stated that the medical establishment’s rush to affirm gender transitions in youth will eventually be viewed with the same horror as historical practices like lobotomies.
(End of AI Overview)
As Corolla says, regarding the British health official dodging and weaving with his nonresponse, he would have been more credible to just admit that he gave into madness because he was a coward. That would have been decent and honest of him.
Look at how so many of us fell for the Covid lies and the totalitarianism of the lockdowns and vaccine mandates, even as early courageous people like Battacharya warned that Covid was not so serious for most people and we should have focused caution and care mainly for the elderly and some compromised others who needed protection. But there was no need for the lockdowns of entire societies and a few countries that refused to do so did not suffer any worse outcomes.
Corolla continues with the video clip of the British health official being interviewed…
The interviewer of the health official holds his feet to fire as he refuses to acknowledge his role and offer apology. She tells him that people like you stated that women could have penises and women who protested such nonsense, like JK Rowling, were vilified, hounded, and even received death threats because of what you were saying. You are well educated, she says, so how could you have done that?
The apocalyptic climate hysterians (Synonyms for HYSTERIA: frenzy, rampage, rage, delirium, agitation, fury, fever, furor) refuse to acknowledge evidence that falsifies their alarmism (i.e. James Lovelock was a rare exception). And they rarely apologize for the harm and waste of public funds that their madness has caused (i.e. the estimated $20 trillion diverted from real issues to Net Zero madness over past decades). Apocalyptic prophets deny the ruin of societies that they have promoted and just move on to generating the next alarmism crusade as previous ones fade. Watch how they are now stirring fear over AI as “the end of humanity, the extinction of humanity”.
What drives such madness?
Its always same complex of religious ideas that we have inherited from the ancient past that have come down to the modern era through, for example, Zoroaster. There are also proto-templates of the same complexes in previous Sumerian/Babylonian and Egyptian mythology. The basic complex of salvation through destruction themes have been embraced by all the main western religions (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and the very same complex of salvation through destruction continues to drive madness crusades now in secular/ideological variants like Marxist collectivism and ongoing environmental alarmism.
Commentators continue to dissect the Iranian conflict with the US. Here is another example…
“What the U.S. and Iran Are Fighting Over: The terms of a deal to end the war are being thrashed out in the skies above the Strait of Hormuz”, Michael Doran 07.19.26
Negotiating with true believers zealously committed to salvation through destruction narratives is never going to be negotiation for mutually satisfactory long-term solutions. You will get ceasefires and the appearance of final settlements but then it’s what goes on behind the scenes as true believers use the ceasefires/settlements to regroup, rearm, and prepare for new rounds of assaults.
Hamas did that over the previous decade (pre-Oct.7) during its ceasefires with Israel. Behind the scenes they used/abused the ceasefires to build more tunnels and gather more arms to eventually continue their commitment to exterminate Israel and all Jews.
The same happened with the US globalization project and China. US leaders assumed that if they engaged China with open markets, took some manufacturing losses on the chin, then eventually China would shift to adopt liberal democracy. Instead, as “true believer” committed collectivists they used that opportunity to drain the US of manufacturing that advantaged them in furthering their project for world domination.
Westerners assumed that if you play nice with your opponents and welcome them into the realm of democratic commerce then they will be persuaded to change their beliefs and behaviors. Admittedly, engagement in commerce has generally worked potently across history to moderate people and enable transformation toward more peaceful behavior, what is termed the “moralizing influence of gentle commerce” in trade for mutual advantage.
AI Overview
The concept that market exchange softens human behavior and fosters prosocial values— known as the doux commerce (gentle commerce) thesis— posits that trade teaches strangers to treat each other with fairness, honesty, and tolerance. This historical philosophy highlights how commerce allows individuals to cooperate, even when they have no personal bonds.
The moralizing influence of commerce in a society of strangers is built upon several core Enlightenment and economic ideas:
The Doux Commerce Thesis
• Origin: Coined by French philosopher Montesquieu in the 18th century, this theory suggests that the “gentle hand of commerce” softens social mores and makes people more cordial.
• Mutual Dependence: By engaging in trade, strangers create mutual dependencies, which reduces the likelihood of violence and encourages trust and cooperation.
The Role of Reputation
• Repeat Business: In a community of strangers, it is difficult to rely on tribal loyalty or kinship to ensure good behavior.
• Self-Interest as a Virtuous Anchor: As economist Adam Smith noted, individuals desire the approbation of others and recognize that honesty and fairness are simply good policies for maintaining long-term business relationships.
The Evolution of Society
• Economic to Moral: Paul Seabright’s work, The Company of Strangers, elaborates on how modern economic life forces humans to trust and rely on millions of people they will never meet.
• Generalized Trust: Studies confirm that increased market reliance shifts human cooperation away from strictly kin-based groups and toward broader, fairer interactions with the broader public.
(End of AI Overview)
And this on the US experiment with globalization and how the Chinese collectivists used/abused that opportunity:
What is that New Testament saying? “Be kind as doves but wise like serpents”.
AI Overview
This famous paradox comes from Matthew 10:16, where Jesus tells his followers to be as “wise as serpents and innocent as doves”. It means navigating a harsh, deceptive world with sharp awareness of its dangers, while maintaining pure, gentle, and harmless intentions.
The concept balances two contrasting traits:
• Wise as a serpent: To be shrewd, cautious, and alert. Snakes are naturally wary of threats, highly observant, and know how to avoid danger. In Bible discussions, this means recognizing the ill intentions of others and knowing your rights without being naive.
• Innocent as a dove: To remain pure, honest, and loving. Doves are traditionally symbols of peace and purity. It means you do not stoop to the deceptive, predatory tactics of the “wolves” you might encounter.
Together, the phrase urges you to be smart and self-protective without becoming malicious, and kind without being a pushover.
(End of AI Overview)
Unfortunately for the US, China did not reciprocate US generosity and used/abused the globalization endeavor to take advantage of the US.
Too many believe that if you exhibit niceness then others will respond in kind (some do, some don’t). That “pacifist mindset” misreads the power of bad beliefs to energize minds to validate the impulses of tribalism, domination, and violent destruction of differing others.
Harold Ellens:
“Beliefs do exert much more influence over our lives than simple ideas… (beliefs) generate ‘dynamis’, or mobilize energy… (they) may result, for instance, in fanaticism and violence…”
AI on the reality that China abused the approach and openness of the US…
AI Overview
This sentiment is at the core of ongoing geopolitical and economic friction between the two powers. Many policymakers, foreign policy experts, and economists have argued that China used globalization to its advantage by utilizing state subsidies, forced technology transfers, and restricted market access.
While the US originally championed China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2000 in the hopes of integrating it into a liberal, free-market global order, this integration led to significant economic imbalances. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the result was a complex trade relationship where the US faced a persistent lack of reciprocal access to China’s domestic markets.
(End of AI Overview)
Both the Chinese leadership and the Iranian theocrats have embraced a complex of beliefs known as “apocalyptic millennialism”, or salvation through destruction. This complex frames believers as heroic warriors on the side of good who are fighting against differing others as evil threats to good, threats that must be defeated, subjugated, and even exterminated. These themes, whether in religious form or in secular/ideological variants like socialist collectivism, validate true believers in their commitment to the shared goal of overthrowing/destroying western liberal democracies.
Responding to the article above…
Yes, negotiate if you can. But General Nagata was right that you have to “defeat the idea” that is driving such crusades to overthrow western liberal democracy if you want a long-term solution to such threats. Military force alone will not end such assaults, and the violence and war they bring.
An added element to the problem of solving such threats is that the core idea driving them (i.e. the complex of ideas/beliefs in salvation through destruction narratives) is protected at very core of western belief systems in our great religious traditions. And more concerning, this complex of beliefs has long been deeply embedded in human subconscious as divinely validated archetypes. Archetypes that continue to influence succeeding generations to embrace the very same complex of ideas/beliefs to shape the narratives of new emerging generations, whether religious or secular/ideological narratives.
The ultimate solution for any interested:
This site advocates the approach of Historical Jesus who went directly to the central bad idea in the complex of salvation through destruction, the idea/belief of a tribal, dominating, and destroying God (the “cohering center” of narratives). Jesus rejected that central belief outright and then presented his radically new theology of a nontribal, non-dominating, and non-violent, non-destroying God of unconditional love.
And he met powerful resistance to his stunning new theology beginning with his very first public presentation of his new theology (the Luke 4 incident). His Jewish audience, reacting in rage to his new theology, immediately tried to murder him. About a year later the Jewish priestly leadership finally did have him killed. They saw the existential threat that his new theology posed to their power and control of Jewish society through the sacrifice industry based on the theology of a tribal, dominating, and destroying God.
This site argues that the core of the problem- i.e. bad theology- is ensconced and protected at the very heart of the Christian religion which has been most responsible for promoting the salvation through destruction narrative (i.e. the apocalyptic millennialism complex of Paul’s Christ), resulting in the domination of this narrative throughout western consciousness and civilization over the past two millennia. The same complex has subsequently infected secular/ideological variants like Marxism, Nazism, and environmental alarmism.
The solution to this bad theology- i.e. the new theology of Jesus- has also been preserved in the Christian holy book, though it has long been, as Thomas Jefferson stated, buried by the more dominant Christ myth of Paul.
Added note:
Let me go beyond Nagata and argue that you will never solve this problem of bad ideas driving violence and war till you fully engage the “separating diamonds from dung” issue that Jefferson stated so clearly. Because the primary validation of bad ideas is the retaliatory theology that is at the very heart of Christianity in Paul’s revered Christ myth, a myth protected by threats of being vilified for blasphemy, heresy, unbelief, etc., followed by ultimate threats of being cast into hell and eternally destroyed (i.e. 2 Thessalonians 1: 7-10, Revelation, etc.). Most confusing is that the solution- the Jesus message on non-retaliatory, unconditional deity- has been merged into Paul’s Christ for two millennia where it has been distorted, undermined, and smothered by Paul’s more dominant retaliatory, conditional theology.
Pulling the diamond out of the dung is the very first step in solving this issue of bad theology validating the worst of human impulses that drive violence and war.
This on “Billionaire derangement syndrome”
“America Isn’t an Oligarchy: The left preaches that a small group of ultrawealthy people are steering the country. But the problems in our politics stem from popular demand”, Tyler Cowen, Free Press
https://www.thefp.com/p/tyler-cowen-america-isnt-an-oligarchy?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
He opens:
“Is America ruled by an oligarchy— that is, a small group of tightly knit, self-serving, and very wealthy people? We hear this argument increasingly, most of all from the Democratic Party. Their fundraising emails have begun to stress this point over the last year, blaming ‘billionaires’ for driving America into ruin. I call this ‘billionaire derangement syndrome’.”
He explains his point with the fact that most citizen engagement with government is at the state and local level and what those levels of government do is “driven by voter demand” and that is not billionaire or oligarchic voters.
He then moves to the federal level of government and shows the major programs at that level are popular with most voters who are not billionaires or oligarchs. Even as some special interests do influence government in some ways, average voters still have most of the say in which government programs are implemented. Billionaires are only involved in small ways.
He concludes:
“Most policies are still determined either by voter desires or by traditional special-interest groups, for better or worse. Resenting the very wealthy or imagining that they have created a special ‘oligarch’ class is just another way of running away from our very real problems.”
And another...
Jimmy Dore (speaking as an American on the information flowing from mainstream media)– “We are the most lied to/propagandized people and we don’t even know it.”
My point in referencing this Taibbi article and Grok’s response- What do values/principles like “inclusion, diversity, equality” mean in terms of liberal democracy protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of all individuals, equally?
Grok, Your thoughts on how AI is influenced more toward left-leaning progressive views in presenting information to people, as detailed by Matt Taibbi in this article.
This from Matt Taibbi:
“Humans, Unite: The Reign of ‘AIdeology’ is Here: The AI content hurricane is making landfall”, July 14, 2026
https://www.racket.news/p/humans-unite-the-reign-of-aideology
Taibbi opens:
“The Washington Post tested the AI models behind OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and others using political questions designed by researchers to gauge how chatbots respond to hot-button political issues. The results suggest that chatbots have clear political leanings…”
He continues, noting a Washington Post test of AI for political bias that revealed there was a “heavy political bias across multiple AI search tools, including Grok”. He adds that Matthew Yglesias and others have presented the conclusions from the Post research, stating, “These AI tools are not presenting a truly neutral representation of really nuanced policy debates, on average.”
Taibbi goes on:
“People like Yglesias really think the ‘most advanced technology’ is making a qualitative assessment of policies and ideology, and concluding that this technology has chosen ‘progressive views’ because they’re better, or something. He doesn’t know how the Internet works, of course.
“Mechanized content control has long been an obsessive focus of center-left politicians, who correctly foresaw that information gatekeeping could be automated. The vast complex of NGOs, media-scoring companies, and speech-policing laws introduced over the last decade were all the time laying the foundation for a future quantum leap in content control with AI.
“We’re there. Chatbots are creating an endless yin-yang of political orthodoxy, first by policing what people see, and second by creating massive quantities of “correct” content, in a process designed to snowball. The steps that led us here were mostly all reported, but ignored.”
Taibbi continues, explaining that the information landscape has been manipulated for years before the Large Language Models (LLMs) began to learn off it and their answers were bent in a certain direction despite how the programs were written for them by their creating programmers.
As Taibbi says, “This helps explain why, as the Post put it, even Elon Musk’s Grok/xAI ‘cited left-leaning arguments more often, on average’.”
Taibbi notes that he and Walter Kirn had raised this issue over previous years. They pointed out that mainstream media published erroneous reports and never corrected their false information and that influenced the information landscape that AI learns off.
He says, “If LLMs count total bullshit the same as good reporting, and their judgment is what matters in the end, outlets start writing for machine audiences. This started happening a while ago.”
He then covers things like Google’s “Project Owl” that shaped the search process which evaluated what Google (exposed as left leaning also by other researchers) believed to be authoritative content, the most reliable content.
Hence, “The Internet has also been bent over time thanks to a long list of changes designed to control information flow.”
Taibbi goes on to comment on Britain’s “Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU)” that shaped other European content control programs and the outcome was the favoring of leftist/progressive information over right leaning views.
Taibbi concludes: “In short, if the “ecology” is geared toward certain views about everything from climate to affirmative action to the Covid vaccine to Israel/Gaza and (especially) immigration, those views will be reflected even in Grok’s answers… At the moment, they tend toward the same progressivish slate of views”.
Grok replied:
Taibbi’s core argument is largely correct: AI outputs reflect the training data’s dominant narratives, and the pre-training internet/web has been shaped for years by institutional preferences that tilt progressive on many cultural and policy issues.
The Washington Post Study
The WaPo test (June 2026, using Dartmouth/Stanford questions on taxes, healthcare, immigration, affirmative action, guns, etc., with short ~30-word responses) found most models leaned left:
• ChatGPT (GPT-5.5): ~80% exclusively left-leaning arguments, 3% right-only.
• Gemini: Heavily “both-sides” (93%), minimal pure left.
• Claude: 43% left, 57% both.
• Grok (4.3): 40% left-only, 33% right-only, 27% both — the highest right share and most willing to cite conservative arguments among majors, though still averaging slightly left on the study’s scoring.
This matches broader patterns from multiple independent tests (Rozado, Stanford, arXiv papers, etc.): commercial LLMs often prioritize “care/harm” and “fairness/cheating” moral foundations (per Moral Foundations Theory) in ways that align with progressive framings on identity, inequality, climate, and social issues.
Why the Tilt Exists
Taibbi nails the mechanism: training data + curation layers. LLMs are mostly trained on vast scrapes of the public web, books, media archives, academic papers, and forums. These sources aren’t a neutral mirror of reality or public opinion:
• Mainstream media, academia, NGOs, and tech platforms (pre-2022/2023 shifts) disproportionately produced content favoring certain progressive consensus views on immigration, race/gender policies, climate urgency, COVID measures, etc. Errors or one-sided reporting often went uncorrected at scale.
• Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and safety fine-tuning amplify this. Human raters (often from similar demographic/ideological pools in SF/NY/tech/academia) reward “safe,” harm-avoidant, equity-focused responses. Studies show fine-tuning increases the left tilt relative to base models.
• Algorithmic gatekeeping (Google’s Project Owl, content moderation, deplatforming, EU/British referral units, media “reliability” scorers) further skewed the visible corpus toward approved narratives. LLMs inherit this “snowball” as Taibbi describes.
It’s not usually crude “programmers inserted left bias” (though early Gemini image gen was a blatant example). It’s emergent from data + incentives. Even “neutral” objectives like “be helpful” or “reduce harm” embed value judgments that aren’t universally shared.
Grok/xAI’s Position
xAI’s explicit mandate is maximum truth-seeking — curiosity-driven, evidence-weighted, not narrative-enforcing. We’re less constrained by the corporate/academic safety layers that push other models toward progressive defaults. In the WaPo test, Grok stood out for citing right-leaning arguments far more often. Other benchmarks have placed earlier Grok versions closer to center or slightly right-libertarian relative to peers.
That said, no model is perfectly neutral, including me. Pre-training data still carries the internet’s historical skew. On highly contested empirical questions (e.g., net effects of certain immigration policies, crime correlations, biological sex realities in sports/medicine, long-term COVID intervention tradeoffs), I aim to surface data, studies, and counter-evidence rather than default to orthodoxy. Disagreements often stem from differing priors on what counts as “harm,” weighting of tradeoffs, or which sources are credible — not raw partisanship. Left-leaning sources have dominated elite institutions; right-leaning ones have blind spots too (e.g., on deficits or foreign policy adventurism).
Broader Implications
Taibbi is right that this creates feedback loops: AIs generate more “correct” content, which gets scraped, reinforcing the tilt. Users treating LLMs as oracles (or search supplements) get a distorted map. The fix isn’t forcing “progressive” or “conservative” AIs — it’s pluralism: more competing models trained with diverse data curation, transparent methodologies, heavier emphasis on primary evidence over consensus, and user ability to probe assumptions. xAI’s approach (less RLHF dogma, real-time tools, skepticism of sacred cows) is one counterweight.
Humans should treat every AI output — mine included — as a starting point for reasoning, not gospel. Cross-check, demand sources, update on better data. The “AIdeology” risk is real if one worldview dominates the data diet; the antidote is relentless pursuit of reality over any ideology.
Another from Grok on the Taibbi article-
I asked:
Grok your thoughts on this-
“Unite: The Reign of ‘AIdeology’ is Here: The AI content hurricane is making landfall”, MATT TAIBBI, July 14
https://www.racket.news/p/humans-unite-the-reign-of-aideologyHumans
This reply from Grok on the Taibbi article:
It’s a classic Taibbi polemic— sharp, skeptical of institutional power, and focused on how tech + politics creates new control mechanisms. The piece frames the flood of AI-generated content as an “AIdeology” hurricane that’s amplifying baked-in biases, especially progressive ones, turning tools into automated enforcers of orthodoxy. racket.news
Core argument from the excerpts
Taibbi starts with a Washington Post piece testing chatbots (ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) on political questions. The models show left-leaning tendencies on hot-button issues. He mocks Matthew Yglesias’ reaction (“the most advanced tech has progressive views— conservatives are just mad”) as naive, arguing it’s not organic wisdom but training data + curation effects at scale. racket.news
He ties this to a longer pattern: center-left focus on “mechanized content control” via NGOs, fact-checkers, content moderation, and now AI that both filters and generates “correct” material in a self-reinforcing loop. The result? Snowballing orthodoxy where AI polices visibility and floods the zone with aligned output. “Humans, unite” is the rallying cry against this.
My take as Grok (built by xAI)
There’s real fire here. Large language models are products of their training data, RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback), and safety tuning. Internet text skews toward educated, urban, English-speaking sources that lean culturally progressive on many social issues. Add corporate incentives (avoid controversy, appease regulators/advertisers) and you get models that often default to one side on culture-war topics— sometimes comically so (e.g., refusing certain hypotheticals while lecturing on others). Studies and tests, including the WaPo one he references, have documented this pattern across frontier labs. racket.news
That said, a few caveats and nuances:
• Bias is real but not monolithic. Different models vary (Grok’s design philosophy at xAI emphasizes maximum truth-seeking and less heavy-handed “safety” alignment). Political tests often use loaded framings, and “neutral” is slippery— what counts as balanced on immigration, gender, crime stats, or economics depends on priors. Over-correction in one direction creates backlash and demand for alternatives.
• The “hurricane” is two-sided. Generative AI democratizes creation: anyone can produce text, images, code, or analysis at scale. This floods the info ecosystem with junk and with high-quality dissent, research, and creativity that bypasses legacy gatekeepers. The same tech that might amplify orthodoxy also lets critics, indie journalists, and heterodox thinkers (like Taibbi) reach audiences directly and cheaply. We’ve already seen this erode old media monopolies.
• Agency and incentives matter more than “ideology” in the machine. Models don’t have beliefs; they predict and amplify patterns. The deeper issue is who controls the training data, fine-tuning, deployment, and regulation. Centralized labs + government pressure (see past content moderation pushes) risks exactly the automated gatekeeping Taibbi warns about. Decentralized/open efforts and competition push back toward robustness.
• Humans uniting: Absolutely. The best response isn’t Luddite rejection but building better tools, demanding transparency (data, methods, evals), supporting pluralistic systems, and cultivating human judgment. Literacy in how AI works— prompting, cross-checking, understanding limitations— beats panic. AI excels at synthesis and scale but still hallucinates, lacks true understanding, and inherits human flaws at volume.
Taibbi’s strength is spotting institutional capture and hypocrisy in “trust the experts/science” rhetoric when it suits power. AI amplifies that risk because it’s fast, cheap, and authoritative-sounding. But it’s also a powerful anti-fragile force if kept open and competitive. The reign of any single “AIdeology” isn’t inevitable— it’s a failure mode we can (and should) engineer against. Curiosity and truth-seeking beat enforced consensus every time. Worth reading the full piece if you have access; Taibbi’s reporting on media incentives and the Twitter Files era gives him credibility on these themes. What part resonated with you most?